Choose your preferred view mode

Please select whether you prefer to view the MDPI pages with a view tailored for mobile displays or to view the MDPI
pages in the normal scrollable desktop version. This selection will be stored into your cookies and used automatically
in next visits. You can also change the view style at any point from the main header when using the pages with your
mobile device.

Abstract

Accurate quantification of gross primary production (GPP) at regional and global scales is essential for carbon budgets and climate change studies. Five models, the vegetation photosynthesis model (VPM), the temperature and greenness model (TG), the alpine vegetation model (AVM), the greenness and radiation model (GR), and the MOD17 algorithm, were tested and calibrated at eight sites in China during 2003–2005. Results indicate that the first four models provide more reliable GPP estimation than MOD17 products/algorithm, although MODIS GPP products show better performance in grasslands, croplands, and mixed forest (MF). VPM and AVM produce better estimates in forest sites (R2 = 0.68 and 0.67, respectively); AVM and TG models show satisfactory GPP estimates for grasslands (R2 = 0.91 and 0.9, respectively). In general, the VPM model is the most suitable model for GPP estimation for all kinds of land cover types in China, with R2 higher than 0.34 and root mean square error (RMSE) lower than 48.79%. The relationships between eddy CO2 flux and model parameters (Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), land surface temperature (LST), air temperature, and Land Surface Water Index (LSWI)) are further analyzed to investigate the model’s application to various land cover types, which will be of great importance for studying the effects of climatic factors on ecosystem performances.
View Full-Text

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).